# Meeting Questions:

Webinar

- Proposed Changes to the 10 CFR Part 810 Regulation

Jay Kraemer Asked : Are the dates in 810.15 of the proposal merely place holders or were they intended as the actual dates relevant to the savings clause?

Malcolm Critchley Asked: Will the slides be available after the call

Richard Hill Asked: Will we get copies of the presentation?

Jay Kraemer Asked: What were the criteria for determining which countries were listed in 810.6(b)(1) of the proposal and which would be subje ct to a specific authorization requirement?

Sheila Koza Asked: Why does the proposed rulemaking exclude the Phillipines & Indonesia from general authorizations for technology exports when they are authorized to receive exports of components under 10 CFR 110.26?

Edward Baker Asked: Will the material being presented be available electronically after the presentation?

Kerry Contini Asked : 1. The provisions of general and specific authorizations talk only about assistance to countries, not to individuals. Are we supposed to assume the "deemed export to the home country" part that connects a national to a country? 2. The provisions about how to apply for a license to transfer technology to a foreign national seem to refer only to an employment

context. Are we supposed to assume that a license would be required to transfer technology to a foreign national who is not an employee of the transferor, e.g., someone employed by a different company but located in the US? What about visitors to plants?Roger Spinna to, (INPO and WANO) Asked: In light of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, general authorization should be retained and expanded to apply explicitly to the safety

- related assistance and benchmarking activities of commercia l nuclear reactor operators and industry organizations charged with promoting the highest levels of safety and reliability in the operation of commercial nuclear power plants. Given the need to enhance global nuclear safety, why has the DOE proposed elimin ating the general authorization contained in current § 810.7(c)?

Volker Pasternak, EPRI Asked: By not listing Mexico as generally authorized, commerce would become more complicated and increase the burden on US business. Is this intended?

Donald Irwin Asked : Will DOE process 810 applications under current regulations submitted now, but before proposed regulations are finalized? If so, will they be reviewed under current standards? If not, what standards will DOE use? What should a conscientious entity d o between now and the date the proposed regs are issued in final form?

dcat Asked: Does NNSA have an estimate of the number of additional specific authorizations it will need to process for foreign employee as a result of the new rule? My company employs nuclear workers from an Asian country that has not previously required authorization. Will NNSA hire more staff to process the multitude of new authorization requests? How long will the process take?

Westinghouse Asked: If the goal of the proposal is to bring the Part 810 rules into conformity with NSG Guidelines, why is a general deemed export rule retained and even formalized when almost every other NSG member does not have any general deemed export rule?

Roger Spinnato, (INPO and WANO) Asked : Has th e DOE considered granting genera

authorization to INPO and WANO activities?

Piet van der Heide Asked: 810.11(c) seems to impose an additional administratvie load on administring in an international program who has access to what detailed information. Is this correct? It seems we have now to administer in detail the parts of the technology each individual (foregin national) has access to.Barbara Vaccaro Asked: Are these slides going to be made available to participants after the

webinar?

Hogan Lovells Asked: How do you define "certain uranium milling activities," as referenced in

810.2?

Harrison Akins Asked: Will this presentation will be available after the webinar?

Westinghouse Asked: You said it was evident why India was not on the generally aut horized list as proposed in the revised Part 810 regulation, even though there is a 123 Agreement in place. When and how will DOE address any additional requirements under the Hyde Act on industry for nuclear cooperation with India and Indian entiities sin ce this proposal does not seem to

discuss those?

Donald Irwin Asked: Under the proposed regulations, will it always be necessary to obtain a specific authorization for any citizen of a nation that is not on the list in proposed sec. 810.6(b)(1) to work a t a nuclear power plant in a technical capacity, unless that person already holds a green card? If so, that places a large burden on DOE and on utilities, as well as restricting the qualified labor market. If there are exceptions under the proposed regs, w hat are they?

Richard Hill Asked : We have been asked to provide PWR systems information and PRA information for a plant in China. Is this authorized? Also, isn't there a 123 agreement with

China?

Carol Berrigan Asked: Will these slides be available aft er the Webinar?

Scott Lumadue Asked: Will a printable version of the slide show be made available?k P Lau Asked: Since China is a weapon state and a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the US has 123 agreement with China and we have sold them th e most advanced nuclear reactor system, AP1000, why is China not the the general authorized list?

Carol Berrigan Asked : When will comment letters and other materials be posted on regulations.gov?

Hogan Lovells Asked: Has DOE improved processing time fo r deemed export specific authorization applications, e.g., is DOE taking less than a year and a half to process such applications?

Suzanne Bullitt Asked: Will this presentation be made available at the close of the webinar?

jane in dc Asked: can you fo recast the change expected in the number of activity reports industry will be required to submit under the new rule?

Ben Flowe Asked: Can you make these slides available for download? Very hard to follow and do notes with such a quick presentation.

nbo lin Asked: Will a copy of the presentation slides be made available?

Blair Woodring Asked: dpes this affecting the suppliers of fabrications or semi finished metal products (valve bodies, pump bodies, heavy fasteners, and specialy alloys) ?

Melissa Man n Asked: With extension of the comment period until December 7, 2011, will NNSA also be extending the date by which requests for specific authorization must be submitted for activities that are currently generally authorized (pursuant to the savings clause in the NOPR)?Volker Pasternak, EPRI Asked: Are the "deemed export" rules harmonized with DOC's rules or

are there differences?

Hogan Lovells Asked : 1. Has DOE improved processing time for deemed export specific authorization applications, e.g., is DO E taking less than a year and a half to process such applications?

Jay Kraemer Asked : What consideration was given to either including China, India, and or Russia (two of whom are themselves NSG members and all of whom have 123 Agreements with the US) as generally authorized destinations, and what led DOE to maintain each of them as

"restricted?"

Ted Jones/NEI Asked: What is DOE’s assessment of the likely impact on U.S. exports to the countries that the Proposed Rule would make ineligible for general au thorizations, given that many of the affected countries

- including Chile, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, and the Philippines

- are building, planning or considering new nuclear plants? What is DOE’s assessment of the likely impact on bilateral relationships of raising new barriers to technology transfer? What was the basis for these changes?

Jason Zorn Asked: The Obama administration has come out strongly in favor of clear and predictable regulations. The President has stated that agencies of the Federal gove rnment must only adopt regulations only after a reasoned determined that its benefits justify its costs, and that agencies must tailor their regulations to impose the lease burden on society. The President also affirmed that the regulatory system must prom ote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It is clear that a thorough regulatory analysis for the proposed rule would have aided DOE in better appreciating the significant adverse impacts of this rule,

and to realize that the bene fits would be minimal or non

- existent. The Federal Register Notice for the proposed rule does not indicate that DOE conducted a regulatory analysis. Can you discuss why a regulatory analysis was not conducted, and whether or not such a regulatory analysis would have been beneficial?

Jay Kraemer Asked: For ongoing activities now generally authorized but proposed to require a specific authorization, would DOE entertain a proposal to "grandfather" them, subject to arequirement of notice before a date certai n and an opportunity for DOE to object (as in current 810.7(b)?

Hogan Lovells Asked : 1. Has DOE improved processing time for deemed export specific authorization applications, e.g., is DOE taking less than a year and a half to process such applications? 2. Regarding the 19 general authorization reports for Mexico, Philipines, and

Jordan

- it appears that specific authorizations now will be required, putting an additional burden on DOE. What is the basis for requiring specific authorization for these count ries going forward, and were there any problems identfied from the reports that caused the change? 3. The change in the country list will clearly result in additional specific authorization applications submitted to DOE. Does DOE have adequate resources to handle this increased workload?

Piet van der Heide Asked: 810.11(d) "to avoid, so far as practicable, the transfer of enabling design or manufacturing technology" in enrichment seems to make it impossible for a company in an international cooperation pr ogram to exchange its personnel internationally. I.e. an individual (US citizen) exposed to our R&D and manufacturing in Europe and returning to the US seems to be prohibited of sharing with EU colleagues when back in the US. This is against the principle of the international cooperation where we want to learn from each others best practices. Can you comment on this interpretation of 810.11(d)?

Vijay Sazawal Asked : It is interesting that the speaker invoked 1986, NSG amd 10CFR110 in his presentation. What he obviously missed is the big picture: 1. Cold War is over, the non

proliferation challenges are not communist and pseudo communist countries of the past. 2. The NSG has more members on its list and the rules are mostly uniform for all approved for nucle ar commerce. 3 NRC has a transparent process. On the other hand, NNSA has an opaque process which, rather than becoming translucent, has aggressively become more opaque, more bureaucratic and more burdensome. This is against President's National Export Ini tiative, and will surely kill the future nuclear commerce. By judging industry interest from the applications you get, you are grossly underestimating the industry plight. Make the process transparent

- give us firm time limits by when you will have approv als

- do what many other countries promoting nuclear commerce are doing. Think out of the box. CUT THE RED TAPE.

Carol Berrigan Asked : U.S. companies are generally averse to activities that risk criminal punishment. Given the criminal penalties for viola tions of Part 810, ambiguities in the rule cause businesses to act very conservatively when conducting any activity that could possibly be subject to the rule. In other words, the lack of clarity in the rule and the unreasonable duration of the

processes a ssociated with getting DOE approval have effectively deterred many business from legitimate commercial opportunities. Has the DOE considered the opportunity costs that themany ambiguities in Part 810 have had or will have for legitimate commercial activit y? What additional measures will DOE take to improve the clarity of the final rule? Will additional guidance be made available to all stakeholders?

Edward Baker Asked: If you don't get to all the questions, will you post the questions and

answers on DOE' s website like NRC does for questions that don't get answered during Reg Info

Conference sessions?

Westinghouse Asked: Please clarify that "place holders" means in respect of dates given in 810.15 as proposed? This is not clear to those who have not seen the question asked.

Michael Hopkins Asked: Is it possible to get a list of all the questions asked and distributed with the slides, if indeed the slides are made publically available?

Richard M. Springman Asked : Do the provisions of 810.2 (10) "storag e of irradiated nuclear material" and (12) "Movement of irradiated nuclear materials, including specially designed containers therefor" include spent fuel and spent fuel casks/canisters?